Unlike some other low cost artistic mediums, making films is a creative pursuit which requires money.
In cinematography, having a larger budget means having more control over creating images
and sculpting light.
Although that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible to make films with little or even
close to no resources.
Today, I’ll look at 3 different black and white feature films, at 3 different budget
levels: no budget, indie budget, and industry budget, and analyse how each was shot using
the resources at their disposal.
As the name suggests, a ‘No Budget’ film is typically a movie made at the beginning
of a filmmakers career with little or no money, usually with the goal being to submit the
completed film to festivals in order to make connections or raise money for future projects.
Relics was the first no budget feature I shot.
I photographed and co-produced it along with a director in 2015, with 0 money, casting
ourselves and our friends as actors, with an improvised script, shot over a total of
8 of our off days from work, while living in Tokyo.
Knowing that we pretty much had no resources to make the film, we were forced to embrace
what little we had.
I shot it on my old Canon 550D DSLR which was able to shoot 1080p video.
Because we were going to be shooting in a naturalistic, improvised, documentary style
I wanted a wide lens, which allowed us to see the characters interact with the locations
and which would minimise camera shake for unpredictable handheld work.
I chose to shoot the movie on a 24mm f/2.8 Nikkor prime lens which I used for stills.
Shooting with minimal gear allowed us to work in a documentary style, getting access to
public locations without anyone realising we were even making a film.
We chose to shoot the film in black and white.
Although we were aware of the stigmas of shooting contemporary films in black and white, filming
in monochrome was the only way that allowed us to control the palette of the film and
also served as a head nod to our French New Wave visual references.
Because the dynamic range on the 550D was pretty terrible and we had no money for lights,
we tried to always shoot in locations where the natural light was the best it could be.
For day interiors this usually meant placing characters near a window, where the natural
light created a beautiful, soft contrast.
For night or underground interiors this meant finding locations with interesting practical
lighting which was enough to expose the scene.
The key to cinematography with no money is in lighting through the placement and blocking
of characters, choosing the right time and locations to shoot at, and by focusing on
the variables which you can control like framing, shot selection and basic camera movement.
The next tier up from this is low budget, indie filmmaking, where you have money to
rent basic gear, pay actors and access locations.
Alex Lehmann’s Blue Jay, which he directed and shot himself, is a great example of this.
Lehmann shot the film on a Canon ME-20 camera, which is a high ISO camera originally designed
for military use with around 12 stops of dynamic range.
“We were definitely the guinea pig, and I chose the camera for a combination of budget
and look.”
The camera comes with the ability to shoot in exceeding low light conditions and has
a large ‘full frame 35mm’ sensor, whose perspective Lehmann wanted to adopt.
“There have been a lot of films shot on large format recently...and you can create
a different space that way, as you’re shooting very close-up to your characters, without
getting wide-angle distortion.”
They shot simultaneously with two cameras to speed up the shooting process and get more
coverage.
"I like the ability to have the A camera reactive to what the actors are doing, and have a B
camera shooting a safety shot so we don’t miss anything important."
Shooting black and white visually simplified the film.
Removing the colour removed any visual distractions so that the characters and what they were
saying remained the focus.
Although they had to move and shoot very quickly, having control over the locations meant that
some basic lighting was possible.
“All we needed were some LEDs, various light pads and practicals.
I was even able to use some Christmas lights I took from my backyard, which gave a lovely
glow to the actors’ faces.”
So while this indie budget film still shot with mainly natural light, Lehmann was able
to: use LEDs to provide a softer, more even exposure to scenes, break up having a flat
background by placing practical light sources in the background of a frame and use a camera
with enough dynamic range to help preserve the details in the highlights and shadows.
Now we come to a film made with ample resources from a standard, industry budget.
At this level there is enough money to carefully select whatever technical gear is required,
build beautiful sets, have a full technical crew and space out the shooting schedule so
that more time and care can be given to crafting individual shots and performances.
So, with all the technical tools at their disposal, let’s break down the gear which
was selected to shoot The Lighthouse.
To achieve a textured, weathered, orthochromatic look which was appropriate to the time period,
Jarin Blaschke opted to shoot the film on Kodak’s Eastman Double-X black-and-white
5222 film stock.
He shot the film on vintage 1940s Bausch & Lomb Baltar lenses to further enhance the period
look.
To achieve the orthochromatic look, characteristic of early 19th century photographs, he got
Schneider to create a custom filter.
Because early film could only record ultraviolet and blue light, the skies, which contain a
lot of blue, became bright and blank, while skin tones would record darkly, with strong
blacks.
“So blemishes and textures on a face were emphasized.
This look not only evokes a bygone time, but further weathers the appearance of our salty,
beaten-down characters in The Lighthouse.”
Shooting with the slow, old Double-X film stock meant that in daylight he had to light
to 80 ASA and when shooting with tungsten light had to light to a measly 50 ASA.
This meant that large, powerful light sources were required in order to have enough light
to expose the film.
For day interiors inside the lighthouse he created what he refers to as a cyclorama.
His lighting team rigged white muslin textile above the windows around the circumference
of the lighthouse.
Into these he’d bounce 2 HMI M-90s and 2 18Ks.
Having so many powerful sources brought up exposure enough to shoot at 80 ASA, and bouncing
them created beautiful, natural, soft light.
He utilized a range of grips gear such as a technocrane and a dolly to perfectly compose
each shot and execute smooth, cinematic camera movement.
So, with vastly increased cinematic control from an industry appropriate budget, Blaschke
was able to choose a very specific photographic medium which best told the story, bounced
many large and powerful lights to achieve a beautifully soft texture of light at a perfectly
controlled exposure, and used grips equipment operated by a professional film crew to create
precise, polished camera moves.
Looking at these three examples shows that the main, tangible asset that money buys in
cinematography is control.
Having a large budget allows the DOP the freedom to make whatever technical choices are necessary
to best tell the story visually.
Money doesn’t by any means negate the influence of a cinematographer.
Having more budget doesn’t mean the images produced by the cinematographer will be perfect,
unless the DOP is talented, knowledgeable, thoughtful and deliberate.
Likewise having less budget doesn’t necessarily mean that the visuals will be inherently inferior.
Ultimately, although money certainly provides more cinematic control, the strength of the
visuals are always reliant on getting the right DOP to execute the vision of the story.
I’d like to thank everyone who has subscribed to the channel and continues to support these
videos by watching, liking and commenting.
Until next time, thanks for watching, and goodbye.